The letter from Wildstein’s lawyer, saying “evidence exists,” contradicting Christie’s adamant assertion that he didn’t know about the lane closings on the George Washington Bridge until much later, dropped with a bang as the national media was descending on North Jersey for the Super Bowl in East Rutherford.

The timing of the release, and the oblique wording of the allegation, after several paragraphs outlining Wildstein’s argument that the Port Authority should pay for his legal bills and indemnify him, had legal experts buzzing.

“You have to wonder if this is some kind of act of revenge by Wildstein against Christie, while all the national media has descended on his home state,” said David Lat, founder of the Above The Law legal blog and a former Federal Prosecutor in Newark, where he worked under Christie. “This is not an ordinary Friday afternoon news dump. This is the Friday before the Super Bowl. You do wonder whether this is timed to get extensive media exposure.”

Robert Pallitto, a Seton Hall political science professor and former trial lawyer, had a different theory.

He thought Wildstein might have been hoping that the media focus on the Super Bowl would lessen the public impact of the letter, but still allow him to send a clear message to the Port Authority.

“It may be strategic in that way: He wants them to know, he’s making it public, but he doesn’t want the kind of huge media response he might get on a Monday morning, or if it wasn’t Super Bowl weekend.”

“There’s a lot of games theory, a lot of strategy,” Lat said. “I think Wildstein and Christie are the only people who know where all the pieces are on the board.”

The public allegation puts Christie in a position in which it would look like he’s trying to cover something up if the Port Authority agreed to his demands. But if he doesn’t, it will look like Christie is trying to harm him, Lat said.

“It’s like he’s trying to send signals to the governor,” Lat said. “If his goal is to try to get legal fees and indemnification, it’s a clumsy tactic, because now somehow the evidence has to come out.”

Pallitto agreed.

“It’s almost like they’re throwing all this out like a shotgun blast,” he said.

He added that the letter was so vague it was difficult to come to any conclusions.

“I’m just probably like everybody else,” he said. “I’d like to know what the information is. It is certainly a significant development. You don’t say that and have nothing. But who knows exactly what they do have and if or when we’re going to find out what this information is.”